State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Balour Singh Son Of Sh. Teja Singh on 23 December, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.829 of 2003.
Date of Institution : 01.07 .2003.
Date of Decision : 23.12.2009.
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Patiala.
2. Senior Executive Engineer, Operation Sub-Urban Division, Punjab State
Electricity Board, Bathinda.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Sub Division, Goniana, District
Bathinda.
....Appellants.
Versus
Balour Singh son of Sh. Teja Singh son of Sh. Boota Singh, Resident of Village Kotli
Ablu, Tehsil and District Muktsar.
....Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 03.03.2003 passed by
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Muktsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal, President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents : Sh. I.S. Brar, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Teja Singh father of Balour Singh respondent had filed an application to the appellants in the year 1987 for release of AP tubewell electric connection. The appellants issued the demand notice dated 28.11.2000 in the name of Teja Singh. Teja Singh had expired on 31.8.2000. The respondent along with the demand notice reached the office of the appellant and disclosed about the death of his father and his intention to get the electric connection released.
2. It was further pleaded that the appellants agreed to the proposal of the respondent. They got completed the required formalities from the respondent including the no objection from other legal heirs of Teja Singh. The respondent also deposited a F.A. No. 829 of 2003 2 sum of Rs.22,500/- on 8.1.2001 as service connection charges as per the demand notice. He also deposited Rs.100/- as fee of electric inspector. On the assurance given by the appellants for the release of tube well electric connection, the respondent also constructed a kotha and also installed the electric motor of 7.5 BHP. In all, the respondent spent an amount of Rs.70,000/- in the process. He also submitted the test report to the appellants.
3. It was further pleaded that the appellants delayed the release of tube well electric connection to the respondent. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, the respondent filed a complaint against them in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short, "the District Forum"), seeking the release of AP electric connection. He also prayed for compensation of Rs.2 lacs and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/-.
4. The appellants filed the written reply. It was admitted that Teja Singh had submitted an application for the release of AP electric connection in the year 1987 to the appellants and that the appellants had issued the demand notice dated 28.11.2000. The death of Teja Singh was brought to the notice of the appellants by the respondent only when the second demand notice was issued to him. It was admitted that the respondent had reached the office of the appellants and the formalities were completed by him. It was also admitted that necessary amount as per the demand notice was deposited by the respondent, formalities were completed and the test report was submitted by the respondent to the appellants.
5. However, the version of the appellants was that the respondent had not come to the court with clean hands and he had concealed material facts. As per the appellants, real facts were that Teja Singh son of Budh Singh who was the father of the respondent, had applied for tube well electric connection under the general scheme. The electric connection was released to said Teja Singh on 24.3.1997 (In fact, this date is 24.3.1993). However, due to clerical mistake, entry for releasing the tube well electric connection was not made in the relevant register by the officials of the appellants.
6. It was further pleaded that in the meantime, circular bearing no.70-2000 was issued by the Punjab Govt. by which Muktsar district was declared as the water- F.A. No. 829 of 2003 3 logged area and a direction was issued that in every village, 10 tubewell connections should be released after issuing the demand notice. Since no entry was made in the relevant register about the release of tubewell electric connection to Teja Singh, therefore, by an omission a fresh demand notice was issued in the name of said Teja Singh son of Budh Singh (father of the respondent).
7. It was further pleaded that thereafter, the respondent had come to the appellants and had told about the death of his father Teja Singh but he had concealed material fact that the electric connection was already released to his father on 24.3.1997. Rather, he gave a false affidavit that no electric connection was released under that scheme. He also gave an affidavit of other legal heirs of his father Teja Singh that they had no objection if the electric connection was released to the respondent. It was further pleaded that the appellants were in the process of getting a case registered against the respondent for misleading them and for these reasons, the tubewell electric connection was not released to the respondent. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and dismissal of the complaint was prayed. It was also prayed that the respondent be punished under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.
8. In support of his case, Balour Singh respondent had filed his affidavit as Ex.C1. He also proved the documents as Ex.C2 to Ex.C7.
9. On the other hand, the appellants filed affidavit of Harvel Singh Dhaliwal, Assistant Engineer, PSEB, Sub Division, Goniana, as Ex.OP1. The appellants also proved the documents as Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3. The appellants also filed photo copy of affidavit of Balour Singh respondent as Ex.OP4 and copy of another affidavit of Balour Singh as Ex.OP5. They also filed affidavit of Gurmel Singh, Sukhmander Singh sons of Teja Singh as Ex.OP6. Harvel Singh, SDO, PSEB, Goniana, also tendered himself for cross examination and he was cross examined.
10. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 03.03.2003
11. Hence, the appeal.
F.A. No. 829 of 2003 4
12. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2003 be set aside.
13. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and that the same be dismissed.
14. Record has been perused. Submissions have considered.
15. Admittedly, Teja Singh son of Budh Singh resident of village Kotli Ablu, Tehsil and District Muktsar had submitted an application to the appellants in the year 1987 for the release of tubewell electric connection under the general scheme. Said Teja Singh was the father of Balour Singh respondent. This application was registered at serial no.10494.
16. The appellants have proved on the file document to show that the tubewell electric connection was in fact released to Teja Singh son of Budh Singh resident of village Kotli Ablu on 24.3.1993 (not on 24.3.1997) bearing account no.APK-325 against his application dated 30.9.1987 which was registered at serial no.10494 in the relevant register of the appellants (Ex.OP2). The appellants have also proved a copy of the entry from the test reports register as Ex.OP3 which was received under the SFS Scheme. This entry also reveals that the electric connection bearing account no.APK-325 was released to Teja Singh on 24.3.1993 against his application dated 30.9.1987 which was registered at serial no.10494.
17. At the time of arguments, the appellants have also placed on the file a copy of the entry which reveals that the electric connection released on 24.3.1993 in favour of Teja Singh son of Budh Singh was made functional on 31.3.1993.
18. The appellants have proved on the file report dated 27.10.2009 of Sukhmandar Singh Patwari which reveals that after the death of Teja Singh, the land was entered in the name of Gurmel Singh, Sukhmandar Singh and Balour Singh (present respondent) sons of Teja Singh to the extent of 3/4th and in favour of Pargat Singh son of Nachhattar Singh son of Teja Singh (1/4th). It was reported by the village Patwari that the motor electric connection was running in the said land. This report, therefore, reveals that F.A. No. 829 of 2003 5 the electric connection was already running in the land once owned by Teja Singh son of Budh Singh.
19. The appellants have also produced on the file a copy of the entry from the register for the period from September, 2003 to August, 2005 according to which, electricity bills were being issued in the name of Teja Singh son of Budh Singh against his electric connection bearing account no.APK-325 since September, 2003 upto 1.8.2005.
20. The version of the appellants is that due to clerical error, a fresh demand notice Ex.C4 was issued in the name of Teja Singh although the electric connection was already released in his favour and was installed in his land. The respondent exploited the omission on the part of the appellants and complied with the demand notice and sought the release of the electric connection concealing it from the appellants that the electric connection was already released in the name of his father Teja Singh son of Budh Singh prior to his death.
21. On the other hand, the respondent has failed to produce any document on the file to show if no such electric connection was released by the appellants in the name of Teja Singh in the year 1993 during his lifetime. He has only proved the documents by which the demand notice was sent by the appellants to Teja Singh and by which he had deposited the amount of Rs.22,500/- (Ex.C2) and also the receipt to show that he spent an amount of R.12,000/- in purchasing the motor. He also proved the treasury challan form Ex.C5 to prove that he had deposited Rs.100/- and the test report dated 8.1.2001 Ex.C6. These documents produced by the respondent only show that he had received the demand notice in the name of Teja Singh son of Budh Singh and he had complied with that demand notice.
22. In view of the discussions held above, we reach the conclusion that the electric connection was actually released by appellants to Teja Singh on 24.3.1993 and the demand notice was issued by the appellants under a mistaken motion and the respondent was not entitled for the release of another tubewell electric connection. F.A. No. 829 of 2003 6
23. However, the respondent was entitled to seek refund of the amount deposited by him.
24. Accordingly, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 3.3.2003 is set aside.
25. The case was fit for burdening the respondent with heavy costs but since the amount of Rs.22,500/- was deposited by him with the appellants which remained deposited for a sufficient long time and since the respondent has already spent a huge amount on purchasing the BHP motor and in constructing a kotha, therefore, the costs are not being imposed on him.
26. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 1.7.2003. This amount of Rs.10,000/- along with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the Learned District Forum.
27. The arguments in this case were heard on 11.12.2009 and the orders were reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
28. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER December 23, 2009.
(Gurmeet Singh)